Clues in the New Testament reveal how its authors said Mass and prayed.

Blogs |
Jan. 12, 2016

How the New Testament Authors Said Mass and Prayed

Jimmy Akin

Today we have standardized versions of the words of institution at Mass and of the Lord’s Prayer.

At least within a given language group and rite of the Church, you’ll find priests saying the words of institution and the faithful saying the Lord’s Prayer the same way.

But in the first century, things were not fully standardized.

Originally, the Christian community passed on the Jesus traditions orally, and this oral transmission gave rise to slightly different wordings that are preserved by the New Testament authors.

An interesting result is that we can tell something both about how the New Testament authors said Mass and prayed.

How First Century Christians Said Mass

The New Testament gives us four accounts of the words of institution at Mass. They are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians.

Here is Matthew’s account, with the words he has in common with Mark bolded:

Take, eat; this is my body. . . .
Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:26-28).

And here is Mark’s account, with the words he has in common with Matthew bolded.

Take; this is my body. . . .This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many (Mark 14:22-24).

You can see how similar they are. Matthew has a few additional words of explanation, which is typical of how his Gospel works. Mark’s is more terse, leaving more for the reader to infer.

Now here’s Luke’s version, with the elements he has in common with Matthew and Mark bolded. I’ve also put certain elements in red, for reasons we’ll see in a moment.

This is my bodywhich is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. . . .Thiscupwhich is poured out for you isthenewcovenantinmy blood (Luke 22:19-20).

Already you can see how different Luke’s version is. The red elements aren’t in Matthew or Mark.

But they are in Paul.

Here’s Paul’s account of the words of institution, with the words he has in common with Matthew and Mark bolded and the words he has in common with Luke in red:

This is my bodywhich is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. . . .Thiscupis thenewcovenantinmy blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me (1 Cor. 11:24-25).

You can see how similar Paul’s version is to Luke’s. It has an additional sentence at the end, which parallels the words regarding the body to those of the blood, but it is much closer to Luke’s version than to Matthew and Mark’s.

What This Means

What this means is that there were at least two significant streams of tradition regarding the words of institution in the first century—one represented by Matthew and Mark and one represented by Luke and Paul.

There may have been others also, but they did not find a place in the New Testament.

We can also infer something about why these two streams of traditions are represented in the New Testament books they are.

It is almost universally agreed that there is a literary relationship between Matthew and Mark. Either Matthew copied from Mark or Mark copied from Matthew. So the account of one Evangelist could have influenced the text of the other.

But this isn’t the whole of it.

If, as our earliest information indicates, Mark was based on the preaching of Peter, then Mark’s version of the words likely stems from that source: It was how Peter said Mass.

This, as well as the concision of Mark’s account, means it is likely a very early and original version of the tradition.

It’s also probably how Mark himself said Mass (Mark being the first bishop of Alexandria).

Matthew—also an eyewitness of the Last Supper—has a similar but somewhat clarified version of the tradition, and it is likely how Matthew himself said Mass.

Even if Matthew used Mark, when he came to this passage he likely used his own experience in saying Mass when writing this passage.

What about Luke’s version?

We do not have a strong tradition of Luke being a bishop or a priest (note Jerome’s failure to mention him being either of these in his Lives of Illustrious Men, ch. 7).

As a result, Luke may not have been drawing on his experience of saying Mass but on his experience of hearing it, and we know one person who he would have regularly heard saying Mass: St. Paul.

Luke was a regular travelling companion of Paul, as indicated by the “we” passages in Acts (i.e., the passages in which the narration shifts from describing Paul’s travels in the third person to describing where “we” went—indicating the author’s presence at the events).

These passages indicate that Luke was with Paul for long periods of time, and he would have heard Paul say Mass frequently.

Further, both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were addressed to a particular man, who Luke refers to as Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1), though this may have been a codename to protect his identity (the name means “God-lover” in Greek).

Since Acts abruptly stops in A.D. 60, when Paul is awaiting trial before the Emperor Nero in Rome, it is likely that this is where and when Acts was written. Theophilus was likely an influential Roman Christian, and he may have even been the patron who subsidized the writing of these two works.

Given the interest that Acts takes in Paul, who becomes the dominant figure in Acts (after Peter played this role in the book’s early chapters), Theophilus was likely quite interested in Paul.

Acts—and even the Gospel of Luke—may have been prepared with an eye toward explaining to Theophilus how the Christian movement began and how Paul came to be awaiting trial in Rome.

This means that Theophilus likely knew Paul and had frequently heard him say Mass.

Whether because Luke had often heard Paul say Mass or because Theophilus had (or both), it would be natural for Luke, when coming to the account of the Last Supper, to use a version of the words of institution that Paul often employed.

Luke certainly either had Mark or Matthew in front of him (or both, as other passages in his Gospel show), but he didn’t use the tradition for the words of institution found in those Gospels. Instead, he used the same stream of tradition represented in 1 Corinthians.

We thus could infer from 1 Corinthians itself that this was how Paul usually said Mass, but the evidence of Luke’s use of the same tradition confirms it.

This has implications for something else . . .

How First Century Christians Prayed

Christians in every age have had many free-form, spontaneous prayers, but they also have pre-formed prayers—most notably the “Our Father” or Lord’s Prayer, which is represented in two of the Gospels: Matthew and Luke.

Here is Matthew’s version, with the words he has in common with Luke bolded and with words omitted from Luke in red:

OurFatherwho art in heaven,Hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come.Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.Give us this day our daily bread;And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors;And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Matt. 6:9-13).

Here is Luke’s version, with the words he has in common with Matthew bolded:

Father,hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come.Give us each day our daily bread;And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us;And lead us not into temptation (Luke 11:2-4)

As you can see, both versions are similar, but Matthew’s has an additional petition (“Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”) and various clarifying elements (“Our,” “who art in heaven,” and “but deliver us from evil”). The two versions also have a paraphrased element regarding our sins/debts and how we forgive those indebted to us.

Since such clarifications are typical of Matthew’s Gospel, it may be that Luke’s version represents an earlier form of the tradition regarding this prayer.

However, even if it doesn’t, it likely represents something else: How Paul prayed.

Just like the words of institution represented a Jesus tradition that was memorized and frequently repeated in the life of the early Church, so does the Lord’s Prayer.

Indeed, the first was regularly repeated only by priests, while the latter was regularly repeated by all the faithful.

If Luke used what he heard from Paul’s lips at Mass when writing his Gospel, it’s very likely he did the same for the Lord’s Prayer as well.

This would not only have been how he (and Theophilus) heard the Lord’s Prayer from Paul but also how they said it themselves.

Franklin P. Uroda: Your heart is in the right place, but your comment suggests you think the Septuagint was written after the evangelization, and that Jews throughout the Empire viewed Hebrew as their first tongue. In fact, Jews throughout the Roman Empire used the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of the Scriptures, much as Christians throughout history have used vernacular translations of the Bible. The Septuagint predated Christ by about two centuries, and was well-spread throughout the Jewish world by the time of Christ. In the Roman empire, the “lingua franca” was Greek, much as English is today in academia (say) and often even in business.

Also, the native tongue of Christ and the apostles was not Hebrew; it was Aramaic. Some parts of the Old Testament were originally written in Aramaic. True, in Palestine, the language of worship and common discourse may well have been Aramaic and/or Hebrew, but among the fast-growing groups of Christians evangelized by Paul, the common language was Greek. Paul wrote his letters in Greek, and Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek. It is believed that John wrote his Gospel in Greek, too.

Posted by Gitanjali Sudhir on Friday, Jan, 15, 2016 9:18 PM (EST):

Gita - Chennai - India

Someone writes that there was Holy Mass celebrated daily in the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, as it is now celebrated in my parish…
Really?

It’s interesting to note that in the pre-Vatican II version of the Roman Canon the words over the hosts conclude with “Hoc est enim corpus meum”/”for this is my Body”. In the 1969 Order of Mass, the words “quod pro vobis tradetur”/”which will be given up for you” were added.
In the traditional Mass, the words over the chalice conclude with “Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis”/”As often as you shall do these things, you do them in memory of me”. In the 1969 Order of Mass, this was changed to “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem”/”Do this in memory of me”. One can compare the two here: http://www.extraordinaryform.org/ExtraordinaryFormTextLandscape.pdf versus here: http://www.latinliturgy.com/OrdinaryFormMassText.pdf

Posted by gabriel on Friday, Jan, 15, 2016 6:52 AM (EST):

You mention the holy Mass, and it would be useful to point out that in the Acts of the Apostles it says: “Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes.” (Acts 2:46). This indicates that the Apostolic Church already had daily Mass. As far as the Our Father is concerned, it seems to me that the original Aramaic version of Jesus would have spread in Palestine and been well fixed by the time of the writing of the Gospel of Matthew (directed especially to the inhabitants of ancient Israel and other Christians of Jewish origin). I think it would have been impossible for Matthew to change the words of Jesus, which would have been already well known to his readers. Luke instead is writing to those who were converts outside of Palestine; it is quite possible that a simplified version was used there for the purpose of instructing converts.

The following may not seem to be on topic but for Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, St. Paul: a few representatives of the First Century A.D., Hebrew, spoken for thousands of years previously, was the native language of all of them, and-from what I gather from the Gospels-thousands of others in the Church as well. Before the Gospels, the Hebrew Scriptures were the Bible. Before the Septuagint (Greek) it all was in Hebrew. Doesn’t it naturally follow that the language of the Church would have been Hebrew? Situations changed and the really traditional things changed along with them. Hebrew was out and Latin, the language of the hated oppressors who murdered Jesus, became the lingua franca of the Apostolic Church (along with Greek) and I suppose there were Hebraists who objected to this linguistic surrender to modernity. The division among worshipers that now exists because of the Latin/Vernacular/old, but permissable/new Mass forms, disturbs me. Changes in languages have occurred and will occur.

Posted by Manny on Wednesday, Jan, 13, 2016 7:57 AM (EST):

Excellent read! Fascinating.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

The time period for commenting on this article has expired.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, “A Triumph and a Tragedy,” is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on “Catholic Answers Live.”